Technical Note: A mobile sea-going mesocosm system – new ...
Title: A mesocosm-based assessment of whether root hairs ... · Web viewFive trenches were dug...
Transcript of Title: A mesocosm-based assessment of whether root hairs ... · Web viewFive trenches were dug...
Title: A mesocosm-based assessment of whether root hairs affect soil erosion by
simulated rainfall.
Running title: Root hairs and soil erosion.
Authors: Emma Burak, Ian C. Dodd, and John N. Quinton
Institution: Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1
4YQ, UK
Corresponding author: Emma Burak ([email protected], ORCID: 0000-0001-
5641-4112)
Abstract
Although plant canopies are widely recognised to protect the soil and help mitigate
soil erosion, recent research has shown that the majority of soil scour prevention can
be attributed to the roots. Since roots are more difficult and time-consuming to
measure than shoots, research in this area has largely been limited to understanding
the influence of large roots and/or whole root systems, and there is little understanding
on how smaller root traits, such as root hairs, contribute to the root system’s ability to
mitigate soil erosion. Therefore, this study subjected a root hairless mutant (brb) of
barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Pallas) and its wild-type (WT) to simulated rainfall.
The results showed that increasing root presence significantly reduced soil erosion but
the impact of root hairs were less clear. Soil detachment significantly decreased as
root length density increased, with no apparent genotypic difference in this
relationship. The brb root systems produced significantly thinner (0.8-fold) roots and
higher percentage (1.1-fold) of fine roots, with both traits previously associated with
increased ability to mitigate soil erosion. However, brb mesocosms produced a similar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
quantity of eroded soil to WT mesocosms, suggesting that root hairs in WT plants
could have compensated for their root systems’ reduced ability to mitigate soil
erosion.
Keywords
Barley, brb, Roots, Root hairs, Simulated rainfall, Soil erosion.
Highlights
It is not known whether root hairs affect a root system’s ability to mitigate soil
erosion.
Soil yield following simulated rainfall was compared for a root hairless mutant
(brb) and its WT.
Root traits of brb favoured erosion mitigation, but brb and WT mesocosms eroded
to the same degree.
Introduction
Erosion of agricultural soil is of global concern (Quinton et al., 2010; Borrelli et al.,
2017) with severe financial implications and threats to food security (Verheijen et al.,
2009; Posthumus et al., 2015). Soil can be eroded by both wind and water, with water
being the prominent cause in the UK (Verheijen et al., 2009). The mechanisms that
cause soil to erode via water are governed by the detachment force of water versus the
cohesive and adhesive bonds between the soil particles (Laflen et al., 1991). Plants
have long been known to influence these interactions between soil and water, resulting
in a reduction in soil erosion (Acostasolis, 1947; Singer et al., 1980).
Although most research has focused on the impact of above-ground plant matter (such
as leaves and stems), the relative contribution of roots to preventing soil erosion can
outweigh the contribution of above-ground matter (Zhou & Shangguan, 2007). Up to
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
95% of a plant’s ability to reduce soil erosion, caused by overland flow, can be
attributed to its root system (De Baets et al., 2006; Zhou & Shangguan, 2007; Burylo
et al., 2012). Similar results have also been found with simulated rainfall (Ghidey &
Alberts, 1997; Zhou & Shangguan, 2007, 2008). Determining the quantitative
variation in the contribution of the root system to ameliorate soil erosion requires an
understanding of the mechanisms by which roots mediate erosivity.
Previous studies have found that a variety of root parameters are significantly
correlated with reducing sediment yield including: root surface area (Li et al., 1991;
Prosser et al., 1995; Zhou & Shangguan, 2007, 2008), root length density (Bui & Box,
1993; Ghidey & Alberts, 1997; Mamo & Bubenzer, 2001; De Baets et al., 2006), root
density (Tengbeh, 1993; Gyssels & Poesen, 2003), and diameter (Li et al., 1991;
Burylo et al., 2012), percentage of fine roots (Burylo et al., 2012), and a combination
of the above (Shit & Maiti, 2012; Burylo et al., 2012). Therefore, all root systems do
not have an equal impact on erosion mitigation.
At just a cell thick, root hairs are only just visible to the naked eye, but have been
associated with characteristics attributed to reducing soil loss. For example, their
abundance throughout the root system means that over 90% of root surface area can
be attributed to root hairs (Gilroy & Jones, 2000). Root hairs can grow as long as 1.5
mm (Brown et al., 2017) and their total length can be 20 times that of the rest of the
root system (Wulfsohn & Nyengaard, 1999). Due to their small diameter, root hairs
can physically penetrate and enmesh soil aggregates (Rasse et al., 2005; Keyes et al.,
2013). Further to this, White and Kirkegaard (2010) show that roots actively increase
root hair density to increase soil contact. As well as physical enmeshment, root hairs
are considered the main water uptake pathway into the root system (Wasson et al.,
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
2012). So, theoretically the presence of root hairs should have an impact on erosion
mitigation.
Root hairs have been shown to play a role in anchoring plant roots to the soil (Ennos,
1989; Czarnes et al., 1999), but investigations into the inverse of this relationship are
lacking. The only recorded mechanism by which root hairs influence soil
reinforcement is by binding soil to the root through the formation of the rhizosheath,
where root hairs are believed to be a key component alongside mucilage production
(Watt et al., 1994; McCully, 2005; Brown et al., 2017; Pang et al., 2017). The
strength of rhizosheaths have previously been estimated in sonic baths (Brown et al.,
2017), but their resistance to rainfall erosion is yet to be explored. So, while root hairs
have been shown to reinforce soil at the root:soil interface and provide anchorage for
roots, their impact on the whole root system’s ability to mitigate soil erosion is
currently unknown.
In this paper, a root hairless mutant (brb) from barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. Pallas)
was grown in adapted mesocosms, subjected to simulated rainfall, and compared to its
respective wild-type (WT) genotype (with root hairs) with the aim to investigate
whether the presence of root hairs ameliorates soil erosion. We hypothesised that the
presence of root hairs would provide greater soil reinforcement and result in less soil
detachment in comparison to a root system lacking root hairs.
Materials and methods
Mesocosms
The mesocosms were constructed out of 21 litre plastic containers (Euro Container
ref. 9230001, Schoeller Allibert Ltd, UK), with internal dimensions of 55.5 cm length
x 3.6 cm width x 11.5 cm height (Figure 1). Drainage holes were drilled in the base in
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
a 5 cm grid to aid drainage during growth. The top 2.5 cm of the front edge was
removed (Figure 1a) so that the surface of the soil would be above the edge of the
plastic, with 1.5 cm leeway, to remove any obstacles to drainage. The detached
section was temporarily re-attached during the growth stage to maintain the front edge
of the soil profile.
Guttering was constructed out of 40 mm pipe with a 90° bend, which was solvent
welded to one end and affixed to the box with small nuts and bolts, silicone sealant
was used to prevent leakage. The whole box was then affixed to a piece of 18 mm
thick marine plywood, cut with corresponding drainage holes and oversized to allow
handles to be attached to either side of the box. The plywood and handles were
necessary to minimise any disturbance to the soil structure whilst moving the
mesocosms.
The mesocosms had a layer of 20 mm gravel lining the bottom to aid drainage and
then filled with a sandy loam textured top soil (Bailey’s of Norfolk LTD; 12% clay,
28% silt, 60% sand and 3% gravel D50 6 mm, no particles greater than 8 mm). The
Figure 1. Mesocosms under the rainfall simulator with the cover over the outlet drainpipe and the collection container (a) and a schematic of the boxes (b) showing; 1. Gutter and 90° bend spout, 2. Removable box section that is kept in place during the growth stage to support the soil, 3. Plywood base for reinforcement and 4. Lifting handles.
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
soil was packed to a bulk density of 1.4 g cm–3 and filled in 3 cm increments and
scouring the surface of each layer to achieve a uniform profile .
The experiment consisted of three treatments, a barley root hairless mutant, its WT,
and an unplanted control. Due to time and growth space constraints, these three
treatments were grown in four blocks (one of each treatment per block). Each block
was prepared, watered, and exposed to simulated rainfall at the same time. The
mesocosms were kept in a walk-in controlled environment room set at 24 °C during
the day and 19 °C at night with a 12 hour photoperiod. To limit any effect of climatic
variation in the walk-in controlled environment room, all three treatments per block
were grown adjacent to each other in a random order. While regular spatial rotation of
the mesocosms would have been preferable, they were too heavy and fragile to move
repeatedly.
The barley root hairless mutant (brb – bald root barley) is a spontaneous mutation
with its genetic background in Pallas, a spring barley cultivar. Seeds were germinated
directly in the soil. Five trenches were dug laterally across each mesocosm,
approximately 1 cm deep, and spaced at 11.5 cm intervals. Assuming an 80 %
germination rate, 12 seeds were planted per row to achieve a density of 245 seeds m-2.
The trenches were then filled in and the surface smoothed over and wetted. For
continuity, this process was also carried out on the unplanted mesocosms (minus the
seeds). Each mesocosm was watered until a film of water appeared on the surface,
using a watering can with a spray rose attached, every 23 days for 35 days until
harvest. This was sufficient water for the barley to grow, any more resulted in
excessive movement of surface soil.
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
Rainfall simulator
This experiment used a gravity-fed rainfall simulator (Armstrong et al., 2012),
approximately 3 m above the mesocosm surface (Figure 2). The simulator consisted of
958 hypodermic needles (25G x 25 mm, BD Microlance™ 3, Fisher Scientific, UK) in
27 staggered rows of 35 and 36 needles in a grid 47.25 x 72.00 cm, producing a
rainfall rate of approximately 23 mm h–1 (CU = 86.6). A 2 mm mesh was suspended
approximately 20 cm below the needles to disperse the water droplets and make them
less uniform in size and distribution on the mesocosm surface. The simulator was run
with tap water and there is a weir and outlet pipe in the chamber above the needles to
ensure a consistent water pressure through the needles.
The day before harvest, the mesocosms were left standing in approximately 5 cm of
water overnight to pre-wet from the base to achieve a consistent soil water content.
Figure 2. Gravity-fed rainfall simulator and the mesh hanging below with a close up of the droplets on the needle points.
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
Soil moisture measurements, made using a soil moisture probe (HH2 Moisture Meter
with a ML3 probe, Delta-T Devices Ltd), before each experiment proved that this
method was effective (WT = 33.8 1.0 %, brb = 33.1 0.9 %, and
unplanted = 32.5 1.2 %; p = 0.208), however, there was a significant block effect
(p < 0.01) on soil moisture content (ANOVA table can be found in supplementary
material). The rainfall simulator was turned on 12 hours before the experiment, to
give time for the needle reservoir chamber to fill. The shoots and leaves were removed
with care so as not to disturb the surface soil immediately prior to each test. Any large
gaps (approx. > 3 mm) which formed as a result of soil shrinkage or movement of the
temporary barrier were filled with plumber’s putty (Plumbers Mait, EvoStik, UK),
this also served to reinforce the front edge of the soil, preventing it from slumping.
Each mesocosm was then placed on a 6 % slope under the rainfall simulator for
1 hour. Sediment and runoff were continually collected in a beaker: at 5 minute
intervals the contents of the gutter was washed into the beaker using a measured
amount of water from a 60 ml syringe and the beaker replaced with an empty one. The
beaker contents were weighed and then washed into a metal tray to be dried in an oven
at 105 . ℃
Statistical analysis
The amount of erosion for each interval was equal to the weight of the dry soil
collected in the container every 5 minutes and is displayed as soil detachment rate
(SDR). The amount by which the presence of roots reduced the quantity of eroded soil
in comparison to their respective unplanted mesocosms (relative soil detachment
reduction rate, RSDR) is calculated as a percentage decrease from the unplanted
mesocosms:
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
RSDR=( Ec−E r
E c)×100
where Ec is the sum of the erosion from the control unplanted mesocosm and Er is the
sum of the erosion from the rooted mesocosm, RSDR was calculated for each of the
four replicates.
The amount of runoff was calculated from the weight of the beaker’s initial content,
minus the weight of soil and beaker. Sampling the roots from the whole mesocosms
was impractical so roots were harvested from the top 1.5 cm using a modified
guillotine, as this was easily accessible due to the removable front section of the
mesocosm. The roots were washed out of the soil, stored in a 50 % ethanol and DI
water solution and kept at approximately 4 until they were measured. The roots ℃
were then scanned at 600 DPI using an Epson expression 11000 XL pro scanner,
analysed using WinRHIZO (2013a Pro, Regent, Canada). Root length density (RLD)
was calculated as follows:
RLD=RLV s
where RL is the total length of live roots (cm) and V s is the volume of soil sampled
(cm3). Root surface area density was similarly calculated:
RSAD= (πD ) × RLV s
=RSAV s
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
where D is the diameter (cm) of the root and RSA is the root surface area (cm2) is
under the assumption that the root is cylindrical. Percentage of fine roots is calculated
using the diameter threshold described by Burak (2019). Pearson’s Correlation and
ANOVA were used to assess the root data and two-way ANOVA was used to assess
the amounts of erosion and runoff produced as well as the soil water content of the
mesocosms. Linear relationships between RLD and RSDR for both brb and WT were
assessed by ANCOVA. Full ANOVA tables can be found in supplementary material.
Figure 3. Erosion per each 5 minute interval. The solid black bars = brb, grey bars = WT and the white bars = unplanted. The dashed line depicts the threshold where erosion from unplanted mesocosms begins to consistently surpass those of rooted mesocosms. Bars are means + SE of 4 replicates.
Results
Erosion
The impact of roots on soil detachment rate (SDR) was initially delayed (Figure 3).
Since it took 25 minutes of rainfall for the mean of the unplanted mesocosms to
exceed that of both the rooted treatments, 25 minutes was taken as the threshold for
root impact. The mean total amount of erosion produced in the first 25 mins, before
roots became influential, was 29.3 4.6 g for unplanted, 29.9 13.1 g for brb and
24.1 5.7 g for WT mesocosms. Assuming erosion occurred uniformly across the
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196197198199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
mesocosms, this would equate to an average eroded depth of 0.10 0.01 mm across
all treatments. Due to the lack of discernible root influence during the first 25 minutes,
these data are discarded from further analysis of erosion rates.
In the subsequent 35 minutes, there was a significant treatment affect (p < 0.05) and a
significant block effect (p < 0.01). The rooted mesocosms produced the least mean
total erosion (32.6 14.4 g and 34.5 11.8 g for WT and brb, respectively) in
comparison to the unplanted mesocosms (57.1 ± 10.4 g). These results equate to
reductions in SDR associated with plant roots of 44.0 16.8 % for WT and
40.7 10.8 % for the brb. However, although both rooted treatment consistently
produced less erosion than their respective unplanted mesocosms, only the reduction
from the WT mesocosms were significant (p < 0.05 and p = 0.067 for WT and brb,
respectively).
Figure 4. Runoff per each 5 minute interval. The solid black bars = brb, grey bars = WT and the white bars = unplanted. The dashed line depicts the threshold where erosion from unplanted mesocosms begins to consistently surpass those of rooted mesocosms. Bars are means + SE of 4 replicates.
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221222223224
Runoff
Unlike erosion rates, runoff rates were much less susceptible to temporal fluctuations.
After a brief peak 10 minutes into the experiment, the runoff rates remained relatively
steady for the rest of the hour (Figure 4). However, total runoff and erosion (for the
whole hour of rainfall) were significantly positively correlated (R = 0.82, p < 0.05).
As with erosion rates, there was a delay in the observable difference between rooted
and unplanted mesocosms. The mean of the unplanted mesocosms consistently
exceeded both the rooted treatments after the first 20 minutes of rainfall, in
comparison to the first 25 minutes with erosion rates. The runoff from both unplanted
and brb mesocosms seemed to increase over time but runoff from WT mesocosms
appears to decrease over time. In the last 40 minutes of the experiment, runoff from
WT (2.29 0.48 L) and brb (2.30 0.39 L) mesocosms was less than unplanted
mesocosms (2.66 0.27 L) by 14.6 5.5 % for brb and 11.8 7.5 % for WT.
However, unlike with erosion, there was no significant treatment effect across the
blocks (p = 0.24), though there was a significant block effect (p < 0.01).
Root parameters
There were genotypic differences in some of the root traits. Wild type root systems
had a significantly greater average diameter than the brb root systems (18.6 %,
p < 0.05). This difference in average diameter is most likely driven by the significant
difference in percentage of fine roots (p < 0.01), in WT fine roots made up 11.3 % less
of the root system than in brb. Other root traits differed but not significantly. For
example, for each block, WT produces less root length density (RLD) than their
respective brb, resulting in a mean RLD more than twice that of WT (2.2-fold
greater), in the top 1.5 cm of the mesocosms, though overall these differences were
not statistically significant. Table 2 illustrates that all measured root parameters were
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
auto-correlated. However, although all the measured root parameters were positively
correlated with relative soil detachment rate (RSDR) for brb (Table 3), except
percentage fine roots which were negatively correlated, only RLD was significantly
correlated with RSDR for both WT and brb.
Compared to the unplanted mesocosms, less soil was detached as RLD increased in
both genotypes (Figure 5). For each unit increase in RLD equates to and extra 14 %
reduction in eroded soil in comparison the unplanted mesocosms. WT roots appeared
to be more effective than brb roots at reducing erosion (in comparison to unplanted
soil) as RLD increased, although the interaction between RLD and genotype was not
significant (p = 0.06).
Figure 5. Linear relationships between root length density (RLD) and relative soil detachment rate (RSDR) for both brb (black markers) and WT (grey). There was no genotypic effect so a single regression line was fitted to pooled WT and mutant data. A 50 % RSDR means that the planted mesocosm produced half as much erosion as the unplanted mesocosms, whereas a 0 % RSDR would mean it produced the same amount. P values are from ANCOVA.
Discussion
The initial delay of 25 minutes before a root effect on erosion (Figure 3) is likely due
to the presence of easily eroded surface soil (Armstrong & Quinton, 2009). In the
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261262263264265266
267
268
269
subsequent period of rainfall, both brb and WT roots reduced erosion similarly, but
only WT roots significantly reduced soil detachment compared to the unplanted
treatment. Since the thicker roots and lower percentage of fine roots in WT plants
should have resulted in increased soil erosion (Burylo et al., 2012), the lack of
genotypic differences suggests an important role of root hairs in erosion mitigation.
Roots are known to reduce runoff by increasing the amount of water able to penetrate
the soil, either by lowering the soil water content through evapotranspiration or
physically increasing infiltration by increasing either soil porosity (Stokes et al., 2009)
or hydraulic conductivity (Carminati, 2013). To eliminate potential effects of
evapotranspiration and porosity, the soil was intentionally saturated before initiating
the simulated rainfall. As there was no genotypic differences in runoff rates it can be
assumed that WT and brb root systems had similar impact on soil porosity and
hydraulic conductivity.
Consistent with previous studies (Bui & Box, 1993; Ghidey & Alberts, 1997; Mamo
& Bubenzer, 2001; De Baets et al., 2006), the presence of roots consistently decreased
soil loss from both rooted treatments compared to the unplanted mesocosms (Figure
3). However, the effect of root hairs on erosion cannot be assessed in isolation of the
differences in other root traits (such as root length density, diameter, and percentage
of fine roots– Table 2).
Increased root length density (RLD) is one of the most recognised traits by which a
root system can mitigate erosion (Bui & Box, 1993; Ghidey & Alberts, 1997; Mamo
& Bubenzer, 2001; De Baets et al., 2006). While RLD and relative soil detachment
rate (RSDR) were correlated, genotypic differences in RLD were not significant
(Figure 5). Like RLD, root diameter is positively correlated with erosion rates and
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
percentage of fine roots negatively correlated with erosion rates (Burylo et al., 2012),
therefore differences in average root diameter and percentage of fine roots in a root
system also impact a root systems ability to reduce erosion. Thus, brb root systems
with significantly smaller diameter roots (0.8-fold) and with significantly greater
percentage of fine roots (1.1-fold) than WT, should have been more effective at
reducing erosion than WT. This was not the case and it is hypothesised that the
presence of root hairs may have compensated for the thicker roots and less abundant
fine roots of the WT root systems; explaining why there was no difference between
the soils eroded from the WT mesocosms than the brb mesocosms. However, more
replication and/or a greater range of root length densities is needed to adequately test
this hypothesis.
Conclusion
In the absence of above-ground plant matter, this study showed that root systems with
and without root hairs can reduce soil erosion, and increasing root length density
clearly enhanced this effect. The impact of root hairs, however, was less clear. Barley
brb root systems had a significantly thinner root diameters and higher percentage of
fine roots, traits associated with erosion reduction and suggesting that brb (without
root hairs) should reduce erosion more than WT (with root hairs). However,
mesocosms permeated with brb root and WT roots eroded to a similar degree
suggesting that the presence of root hairs on WT may have increase soil resistance to
erosion, although further work is required to test this hypothesis.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Soils Training and Research Studentship (STARS) grant
from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Natural
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
Environmental Research Council [Grant number NE/M009106/1 to E.B.]. STARS is a
consortium consisting of Bangor University, British Geological Survey, Centre for
Ecology and Hydrology, Cranfield University, James Hutton Institute, Lancaster
University, Rothamsted Research, and the University of Nottingham.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.
References
Acostasolis, M. 1947. The Soil Erosion in the Agricultural Highlands of Ecuador and Suggestions for Their Protection by Appropriate Plants, Principally by Setaria Cernua Hbk. American Journal of Botany, 34, 608–608.
Armstrong, A. & Quinton, J.N. 2009. Pumped rainfall simulators: the impact of rain pulses on sediment concentration and size. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 34, 1310–1314.
Armstrong, A., Quinton, J.N. & Maher, B.A. 2012. Thermal enhancement of natural magnetism as a tool for tracing eroded soil. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37, 1567–1572.
Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., Meusburger, K., Modugno, S., Schütt, B., Ferro, V., Bagarello, V., Oost, K.V., Montanarella, L. & Panagos, P. 2017. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications, 8, No. 2013.
Brown, L.K., George, T.S., Neugebauer, K. & White, P.J. 2017. The rhizosheath: A potential trait for future agricultural sustainability occurs in orders throughout the angiosperms. Plant and Soil, 418, 115–128.
Bui, E.N. & Box, J.E. 1993. Growing corn root effects on interrill soil erosion. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 1066–1070.
Burak, E. 2019. The influence of root traits on soil reinforcement and erosion mitigation. PhD, Lancaster University.
Burylo, M., Rey, F., Mathys, N. & Dutoit, T. 2012. Plant root traits affecting the resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 37, 1463–1470.
Carminati, A. 2013. Rhizosphere wettability decreases with root age: a problem or a strategy to increase water uptake of young roots? Frontiers in Plant Science, 4,
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326327328
329330331
332333334
335336337338339
340341342
343344
345346
347348349
350351
(At: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3742997/. Accessed: 28/11/2017).
Czarnes, S., Hiller, S., Dexter, A.R., Hallett, P.D. & Bartoli, F. 1999. Root:soil adhesion in the maize rhizosphere: the rheological approach. Plant and Soil, 211, 69–86.
De Baets, S., Poesen, J., Gyssels, G. & Knapen, A. 2006. Effects of grass roots on the erodibility of topsoils during concentrated flow. Geomorphology, 76, 54–67.
Dodd, I.C. & Diatloff, E. 2016. Enhanced root growth of the brb (bald root barley) mutant in drying soil allows similar shoot physiological responses to soil water deficit as wild-type plants. Functional Plant Biology, 43, 199.
Ennos, A.R. 1989. The mechanics of anchorage in seedlings of sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. New Phytologist, 113, 185–192.
Ghidey, F. & Alberts, E.E. 1997. Plant root effects on soil erodibility, splash detachment, soil strength, and aggregate stability. Transactions of the ASAE, 40, 129–135.
Gilroy, S. & Jones, D.L. 2000. Through form to function: root hair development and nutrient uptake. Trends in Plant Science, 5, 56–60.
Gyssels, G. & Poesen, J. 2003. The importance of plant root characteristics in controlling concentrated flow erosion rates. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 28, 371–384.
Keyes, S.D., Daly, K.R., Gostling, N.J., Jones, D.L., Talboys, P., Pinzer, B.R., Boardman, R., Sinclair, I., Marchant, A. & Roose, T. 2013. High resolution synchrotron imaging of wheat root hairs growing in soil and image based modelling of phosphate uptake. New Phytologist, 198, 1023–1029.
Laflen, J.M., Elliot, W.J., Simanton, J.R., Holzhey, C.S. & Kohl, K.D. 1991. WEPP: Soil erodibility experiments for rangeland and cropland soils. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 46, 39–44.
Li, Y., Zhu, X.M. & Tian, J.Y. 1991. Effectiveness of plant roots to increase the anti-scourability of soil on the Loess Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin, 36, 2077–2082.
Mamo, M. & Bubenzer, G.D. 2001. Detachment rate, soil erodibility, and soil strength as influenced by living plant roots part I: Laboratory study. Transactions of the ASAE, 44, 1167.
McCully, M. 2005. The rhizosphere: The key functional unit in plant/soil/microbial interactions in the field. Implications for the understanding of allelopathic effects. pp. 43–49. Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University.
Pang, J., Ryan, M.H., Siddique, K.H.M. & Simpson, R.J. 2017. Unwrapping the rhizosheath. Plant and Soil, 418, 129–139.
352353
354355356
357358
359360361
362363
364365366
367368
369370371
372373374375
376377378
379380381
382383384
385386387
388389
Posthumus, H., Deeks, L.K., Rickson, R.J. & Quinton, J.N. 2015. Costs and benefits of erosion control measures in the UK. Soil Use and Management, 31, 16–33.
Prosser, I.P., Dietrich, W.E. & Stevenson, J. 1995. Flow resistance and sediment transport by concentrated overland flow in a grassland valley. Geomorphology, 13, 71–86.
Quinton, J.N., Govers, G., Van Oost, K. & Bardgett, R.D. 2010. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nature Geoscience; London, 3, 311–314.
Rasse, D.P., Rumpel, C. & Dignac, M.-F. 2005. Is soil carbon mostly root carbon? Mechanisms for a specific stabilisation. Plant and Soil, 269, 341–356.
Shit, P.K. & Maiti, R. 2012. Effect of plant roots on soil anti-scouribility of topsoil during concentrated flow. International Journal of Engineering Research, 1, 8.
Singer, M., Blackard, J. & Huntington, G. 1980. Plant cover helps control rangeland soil-erosion. California Agriculture, 34, 8–10.
Stokes, A., Atger, C., Bengough, A.G., Fourcaud, T. & Sidle, R.C. 2009. Desirable plant root traits for protecting natural and engineered slopes against landslides. Plant and Soil, 324, 1–30.
Tengbeh, G.T. 1993. The effect of grass roots on shear strength variations with moisture content. Soil Technology, 6, 287–295.
Verheijen, F.G.A., Jones, R.J.A., Rickson, R.J. & Smith, C.J. 2009. Tolerable versus actual soil erosion rates in Europe. Earth-Science Reviews, 94, 23–38.
Wasson, A.P., Richards, R.A., Chatrath, R., Misra, S.C., Prasad, S.V.S., Rebetzke, G.J., Kirkegaard, J.A., Christopher, J. & Watt, M. 2012. Traits and selection strategies to improve root systems and water uptake in water-limited wheat crops. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63, 3485–3498.
Watt, M., McCully, M.E. & Canny, M.J. 1994. Formation and stabilization of rhizosheaths of Zea mays L.: Effect of soil water content. Plant Physiology, 106, 179–186.
White, R.G. & Kirkegaard, J.A. 2010. The distribution and abundance of wheat roots in a dense, structured subsoil – implications for water uptake. Plant, Cell & Environment, 33, 133–148.
Wulfsohn, D. & Nyengaard, J.R. 1999. Simple stereological procedure to estimate the number and dimensions of root hairs. Plant and Soil, 209, 129–136.
Zhou, Z.C. & Shangguan, Z.P. 2007. The effects of ryegrass roots and shoots on loess erosion under simulated rainfall. CATENA, 70, 350–355.
Zhou, Z.-C. & Shangguan, Z.-P. 2008. Effect of ryegrasses on soil runoff and sediment control. Pedosphere, 18, 131–136.
390391
392393394
395396397
398399
400401
402403
404405406
407408
409410
411412413414
415416417
418419420
421422
423424
425426
427
428
Tables
Table 1. Summary statistics for the measured root parameters. RLD = root length density, RSAD = root surface area density. Data are means ± SE of 4 replicates. P values are from ANOVA, full ANOVA tables can be found in the supplementary information tables 4 to 8.
Averages
brb WT P valueDiameter (mm) 0.188 ± 0.012 0.223 ± 0.005 0.035Fine roots (%) 89.39 ± 2.01 79.37 ± 1.52 0.007
RLD (cm cm-3) 3.37 ± 1.25 1.48 ± 0.57 0.220
RSAD (cm2 cm-3)
0.13 ± 0.04 0.07 ± 0.03 0.287
Volume (cm3) 1.68 ± 0.49 1.13 ± 0.40 0.415
Table 2. A list of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients for all measured root parameters. RLD = root length density, RSAD = root surface area density.* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001.
Diameter(mm)
Fine roots(%)
RLD(cm cm-3)
RSAD(cm2 cm-3)
Fine roots (%) −0.96***
RLD (cm cm-3) −0.91** 0.82*
RSAD (cm2 cm-3) −0.87** 0.79* 0.99***
Volume (cm3) −0.80* 0.73* 0.95*** 0.98***
Table 3. Pearson’s Correlation coefficients between the measures root parameters and RSDR. RLD = root length density, RSAD = root surface area density. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01.
brb WTDiameter (mm) -0.86 -0.89Fine roots (%) 0.82 0.82
RLD (cm cm-3) 0.99** 0.97*
RSAD (cm2 cm-3) 1.00** 0.90
Volume (cm3) 0.99** 0.92
429
430
431
432
433
434